More than one Isaiah?

[Deacon_Joseph]

What does anyone think about the fact that many scholars believe that the Book of Isaiah was written by at least three different people. They often refer to Second Isaiah as being chapters 40-55 and Third Isaiah being chapters 56-66. Third Isaiah is believed to be written after the exile, sometime between 538 and 515 BC. Any thoughts?

 

[lak611]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “This is hardly the place for a discussion of so intricate a question. We therefore limit ourselves to stating the position of Catholic scholarship on this point. This is clearly set out in the decision issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 28 June, 1908. (1) Admitting the existence of true prophecy; (2) There is no reason why 'Isaias and the other Prophets should utter prophecies concerning only those things which were about to take place immediately or after a short space of time” and not “things that should be fulfilled after many ages’. (3) Nor does anything postulate that the Prophets should ‘always address as their hearers, not those who belonged to the future, but only those who were present and contemporary, so that they could be understood by them’. Therefore it cannot be asserted that ‘the second part of the Book of Isaias (xl-lxvi), in which the Prophet addresses as one living amongst them, not the Jews who were the contemporaries of Isaias, but the Jews mourning in the Exile of Babylon, cannot have for its author Isaias himself, who was dead long before, but must be attributed to some unknown Prophet living among the exiles’. In other words, although the author of Isaias xl-lxvi does speak from the point of view of the Babylonian Captivity, yet this is no proof that he must have lived and written in those times. (4) “The philological argument from language and style against the identity of the author of the Book of Isaias is not to be considered weighty enough to compel a man of judgment, familiar with Hebrew and criticism, to acknowledge in the same book a plurality of authors”. Differences of language and style between the parts of the book are neither denied nor underrated; it is asserted only that such as they appear, they do not compel one to admit the plurality of authors. (5) ‘There are no solid arguments to the fore, even taken cumulatively, to prove that the book of Isaias is to be attributed not to Isaias himself alone, but to two or rather to many authors’.”
newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm

 

[Talmida]

More than one Isaiah? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. It’s easy to see the different authors in parts of Genesis. Why not Isaiah too?

The Catechism is clear:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

So finding out the times that various sections of Isaiah were written is necessary to our understanding of the text.

The Collegeville Bible Commentary suggests that the

later writers [of Isaiah] considered themselves part of an Isaianic tradition. Despite the differences between the various sections, there are some basic themes that run throughout. These include:
– the centrality of the holy mountain of Zion;
– a reliance on mythical symbolism to express the hopes (and fears) for the future;
– a yearning for universal peace that involves not only Israel but he right ordering of all nations.

I’m a big fan of text criticism – I think it is the only way to understand the literal meaning of the Bible – on which we must base all higher interpretation.

 

[Contarini]

I’m a big fan of text criticism – I think it is the only way to understand the literal meaning of the Bible – on which we must base all higher interpretation.

Note: this is not actually a matter of textual criticism, since all the manuscripts of Isaiah that we possess (as far as I know) treat the book as a unified whole. This is rather a matter of “higher” or “historical” criticism, which goes beyond the texts as we have them to speculate about authorship, date, sources, purpose, etc.

While I think historical criticism plays an important role in Biblical studies, it is far more speculative and controversial than strict textual criticism.

Edwin

 

[Talmida]

Thanks for the correction, Edwin. I grabbed the wrong word.

 

[Epistemes]

If another prophet other than Isaiah wrote later sections of what we know as the prophecies of Isaiah, I’m not sure why it should matter: if the prophecies are being fulfilled, then we’re perhaps all the better for it not being the original Isaiah.